Thursday, February 28, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, Bradley
Manning speaks, he decries the US counter-insurgency in Iraq, he notes
he tried to speak with two newspapers before he utilized WikiLeaks,
Nouri and his State of Law insult the protesters, the UN meets with
protesters, and more.

Medina Roshan, Barbara Goldberg, Paul Simao and Tim Dobbyn (Reuters) report,
"The U.S. Army private accused of providing secret documents to the
WikiLeaks website pleaded guilty on Thursday to misusing classified
material he felt 'should become public,' but denied the top charge of
aiding the enemy." He has now been held by the US government for 1005
days. Janet Reitman (Rolling Stone) explains, "It was only the second time Manning had spoken in court (the first, in
November 2012, I detail extensively in my article) and the first time he
was allowed to explain his motives. Dressed in his Navy blue Army dress
uniform, Manning, in a clear, strong voice, read out a 35-page-long
statement in which he described himself as a conscience-stricken young
man who, appalled by what he saw as illegal acts on the part of the U.S.
in Iraq and Afghanistan, refused to play along."

This all goes back to Monday April 5,
2010, when WikiLeaks released US
military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were
killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and
Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7,
2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley
Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel
(Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had
been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The
first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring
classified information to his personal computer between November and May and
adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second
comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of
classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud
(Los Angeles Times) reported
that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one
that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty
if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of
this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced
that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has
yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was
postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a
record of his actual actions. Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland,
with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a
traitor."

Kevin
Gosztola: He was pleading to elements of the original charges. It's
easier to say what he didn't plead guilty to committing. He didn't
plead guilty to aiding the enemy, to violating the espionage act, to
violating The Computer Fraud and Abuse act, or to committing violations
of a federal larceny statute. So he didn't say that he was stealing or
that he'd committed a theft when he [had] the information and it became
information he had in his position. So, uh, what that leads is pleading
to the possession of the information, pleading to giving it to an
unauthorized person -- someone who wasn't authorized to receive the
information and then engaging in conduct that would be service
discrediting the military.

Brendan
Trembath: He pleaded guilty to ten of the lesser charges of misusing
confidential information. That information included diplomatic cables,
it included combat videos -- all sorts of material that the United
States wanted to keep private. He has admitted to these lesser charges
but what he hasn't admitted to is the most serious charge of aiding the
enemy. That charge carries a life sentence.

Arun
Rath: It was actually a 35-page written statement that he had worked
on. It took him over and hour to read and, honestly, it's going to be a
while that we'll be digesting all of this. But mainly he talked about
the reasons why he did what he did. He admitted to leaking information
to WikiLeaks. He talked about his time in Iraq and how he grew more and
more disturbed over time with what he saw in Iraq, what he considered
to be abuses. He said the US became obsessed with killing and capturing
people rather than cooperating. He complained to his superiors and he
said that they did nothing. And most interestingly he said that he
actually took some of this information both to the Washington Post and the New York Times and was essentially ignored. That's why he went to WikiLeaks.

For England's Channel 4 News, Matt Frei reports (link is video):Matt
Frei: He also told us that he had tried to contact the New York Times
and the Washington Post and Politico here in Washington first before
going to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Now he left a recorded message
on the answering machine of the New York Times ombudsman [public editor
-- they don't have an ombudsperson at the Times and resisted that title
when they created the position], their kind of editorial watchdog. He
talked to a junior reporter at the Washington Post who didn't return
his call and he never got to see Politico because the weather was too
bad. Had he done any of those three, just imagine how different history
would be because they would have presumably leaked some of those
documents but they would have filtered them first, they would have
protected their source Bradley Manning and this would have indeed become
a debate about America's foreign policy and military policy which is
what Bradley Manning said he always wanted.

A few things on Frei's remarks. There is no ombudsperson at the New York Times.
When the post of public editor was created, the ombudsperson title was
rejected. In addition, it's not just a title that a paper can bestow.
To be an ombudsperson, you're supposed to belong to The Organization of News Ombudsmen.
Second, if "he talked to a junior reporter at the Washington Post who
didn't return his call" then he did not talk to a reporter, he left a
message for a reporter. Third of all, Julian Assange can be faulted for
some things to do with WikiLeaks. He cannot be faulted with regards to
protecting Bradley Manning. Check his statements from the start. He
has stated he did not know who the source was. Julian Assange did not
give up Bradley Manning. Adrian Llamo snitched and got a little pay day
from the government for doing so. Presumably, had Bradley gone to the
other outlets, he still would have found himself needing to talk by chat
room and still mistaken con artist Adrian Llamo for someone who could
be trusted.

Andrew Beaujon (Poynter) notes that the New York Times'
spokesperson Eileen Murphy as has the then-public editor Clark Hoyt. I
can't speak to the public editor issue but on his attempt to contact
anyone else at the Times? Eileen Murphy has not had time -- nor
has the paper -- to have certainty behind the claim that no one knows
anything of such contact at the paper. During the early days of the Go
Go Green Zone, a New York Times reporter was contacted by an
enlisted American soldier with a serious story that the Go-Go Boy in the
Green Zone deemed too hot. I know of that because the soldier then
contacted this site. I wrote about that here shortly after the scandal
broke. He wrote this site and I teamed him with a reporter I knew who
was more than happy to have the story. When I go after someone here,
it's usually for several reasons and that 'reporter' then with the Times
is someone we will never stop ridiculing for many, many reasons
including his running from a 100% real journalism scoop because he
didn't want to upset his friends in the US military brass. So if
Bradley says he contacted any reporter at the paper, I believe him
because of what happened before when a reporter was presented with a
story, with supporting evidence and not just verbal hearsay, and the NYT
scribe said that it was "too hot to handle" and would get him in
trouble with certain US military officers so he was passing on the
article. For anyone who says I wasn't present for that conversation, I
wasn't. The soldier who contacted this site supplied the e-mails back
and for to the NYT reporter. Again, I can't speak to the public
editor, but if Bradley tried to contact a reporter at the paper, I can
easily see him being blown off. Actually, I can speak to the public
editor. I knew Daniel Okrent had an assistant but I really haven't
followed any of the public editor's since. (Daniel Okrent was the
paper's first public editor and any mea culpa from the paper on their
Iraq 'reporting' resulted from the work Okrent did in his public editor
columns.) I just got off the phone with a friend who's an editor at the
New York Times. Hoyt's public remarks are he doesn't remember
speaking to Bradley. Hoyt has not stated his assistant didn't. I was
told over the phone (over the other phone, I'm dictating the snapshot in
one cell phone) that Hoyt's assistant was Mike McElroy. McElroy could
have spoken to Bradley or heard a message Bradley left.

Politico? Bad weather is probably the best excuse for that rag. As for the Washington Post.
There were many stories today. What did the paper focus on? Something
important and news worthy? No, they let their bloggers play with their
own feces publicly at the website. Until mid-day when finally the
adults stepped in and told the 'reporters' to stop filing pieces
attacking Bob Woodward. (Late to the party on Woodward? Click here and click here for Marcia.)
If you were one of those monkey bloggers, let me tell you right now,
it's not over and you should be on your best behavior because your work
is now being seriously monitored by adults way up above you in the chain
of command -- as it should be. So clearly, a "junior reporter" at the Post
doesn't necessarily know news the way a Dana Priest, an Ann Scott
Tyson, an Ernesto Londono or, yes, a Bob Woodward would know news. Erik
Wemple made clear that he does not know news. First with his bitchy
attack on Bob Woodward earlier today and then with his 'report' late this afternoon
which we'll link to because it's so damn awful and so damn stupid.
First off, he worked the phones . . . to call the Times. Golly, Erik, I
just made one call to the Times, to a friend and I got Mike
McElroy's name, the fact that Mike could have spoken to Bradley or heard
the message. These are details that you, a supposed professional
journalist missed. You also 'forgot' to speak to anyone at your paper
to see about Bradley's call to the Post. Then again, I understand a lot of people at the Washington Post don't want to speak to you -- and I understand why they don't -- I really, really understand why they don't. Keep writing crap like the 'report' we're linking to and, Erik, you'll be gone from the paper before the year's up. With regards to your earlier attack on Bob Woodward, tell me, Erik, what I just put in bold, was it a threat?

[Oh, look, Erik, Julie Tate and Ernesto Londono manage to do the job you failed at, "Staying with an aunt in the Washington area as a blizzard blanketed the
region, Manning said he called The Post, seeking a journalist willing to
examine documents detailing security incidents in Iraq. He said he
spoke to a female reporter who didn’t seem to take him seriously."]

It appears only one US outlet is emphasizing a very important and news worthy aspect. Ben Nuckols (AP) quotes Bradley telling the military court:

I
felt we were risking so much for people who seemed unwilling to
cooperate with us, leading to frustration and hatred on both sides. I
began to become depressed at the situation we found ourselves
mired in year after year. In attempting counterinsurgency operations, we
became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists. I
wanted the public to know that not everyone living in Iraq were targets
to be neutralized.
It's amazing how only AP has that aspect of the story among US outlets -- Ed Pilkington reports the remarks for England's Guardian newspaper.
It's probably the most important part. The weakest report from a name
outlet was going to be compared and contrasted but a friend with ABC
News just told me that the editor of that paper wrote a thoughtful piece
on the attacks on Bob Woodward. As a result, a really bad reporter
gets a pass from me today. David Martin (CBS Evening News -- link is text and video) notes,
"Depressed and frustrated by the wars, he used his job as a low-ranking
intelligence analyst in Baghdad to download onto a CD hundreds of
thousands of classified documents -- pus a few videos, like this
helicopter gunship attack that killed two journalists in Iraq --
which he found 'troubling' because it showed 'delightful bloodlust'." CNN's Larry Shaughnessy and Mark Morgenstein (CNN) report:

After Manning's guilty
pleas, Army judge Col. Denise Lind asked the defendant questions to
establish that he understood what he was pleading guilty to.

In addition, she
reminded him that his lawyer had filed a motion to have the case
dismissed on the grounds that he was denied his right to a speedy trial
-- a motion that Lind denied Tuesday. By entering guilty pleas, Manning
loses his right to have an appellate court consider that ruling, if he
chooses to appeal.

For the past two and a half years, Bradley Manning, the soldier accused
of giving hundreds of thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks,
has been the quiet enigma at heart of the largest and most contentious
intelligence leak case in American history. As I write in "The Trials of
Bradley Manning," my story for the latest issue of Rolling Stone,
this silence – imposed by a lengthy pretrial detention that included
nearly a year spent in "administrative segregation," the military
equivalent of solitary confinement – made it possible for a legion of
interested parties on both sides of the political spectrum to graft
their own identities and motivations onto Bradley Manning. They have
portrayed him variously as a hero, a traitor, an emotionally-troubled
misfit and a victim of prison abuse.

And maybe, if people pay attention, a little more is know about US policy. Counter-insurgency. Again, Bradley's remarks:I felt we were risking so much for people who seemed
unwilling to
cooperate with us, leading to frustration and hatred on both sides. I
began to become depressed at the situation we found ourselves
mired in year after year. In attempting counterinsurgency operations, we
became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists. I
wanted the public to know that not everyone living in Iraq were targets
to be neutralized.

The dominant lesson drawn from this costly and ultimately futile war was to avoid
similar missions in the future. As a result, counterinsurgency was eliminated
from the curriculum of American staff and war colleges. When faced with a
violent insurgency in Iraq three decades later, U.S. soldiers had to reacquire
the basic skills to fight it. During the several years it took them to do so,
the country descended into ever deeper civil war.As American commanders
relearned in Iraq, counterinsurgency demands a more discreet and controlled
application of force, a more politically directed strategy, greater knowledge of
the society one is operating in, and more interaction with the local civilian
population than conventional combat. Perhaps the most essential distinction
between the two forms of warfare is that successful counterinsurgency focuses
less on killing the insurgents and more on protecting the population from
insurgent violence and intimidation. There is a legitimate debate over
how deeply the U.S. military should invest in counterinsurgency capability at
the expense of conventional capacity. But no one seriously argues that
counterinsurgency tactics are not necessary to resist insurgencies.

That's
so inaccurate but do we expect accuracy from Dobbins? He served under
George H.W. Bush which means he knows all about lying.
Counter-insurgency in Vietnam included such 'wonders' as: To save the
village, we had to burn the village. In Vietnam, they were a little
more open about what took place and that was kill the ones you think are
seen as leaders to get the native population to fall in line. In
addition, it fell out of favor because of all the War Crimes -- all the
indiscriminate killing, the rapes, you name it.

Dobbins claims
that counter-insurgency was needed in Iraq. Then why was it developed
before the war? If commanders 'relearned' the importance of this War
Crime technique, then who 'knew' to include it before the war started?

"A
more discreet and controlled application of force" is a polite way for
saying "targeted killings." In addition, Iraq and Afghanistan saw new
War Criminals. Anthropologists willing to betray the teachings and
ethics of their profession agreed to act as spies and snitches on native
populations. They carried guns and they lied. They did not identify
themselves as anthropologists. They're supposed to practice informed
consent. That means, if I'm an anthropologist and I'm studying your
culture, I tell you what I am and I tell you I have some questions and
ask you if you'd like to answer. You're free not to. But there are no
ethics for War Criminals. So you had them in military garb, carrying
guns, going door to door with the US military, leading native
populations to believe these foreigners with guns were military and had
to be answered. If they'd known they didn't have to answer, they might
have rightly told these Montgomery McFates and others losers, "F**k off"
-- and then slammed the door in their faces.

But the US military knew that as well which is why informed consent wasn't practiced.

They
forced their way into the lives of a native population, they acted as
spies and informers -- for a foreign force that wanted to dominate the
country. That's not anthropology, that's not social science. That's a
betrayal of everything the social sciences are supposed to stand for. As Elaine pointed out Tuesday night, "Counter-insurgency needs to be loudly condemned. I fully support
stripping people of professional accreditation if they use their
academic training to trick or deceive native populations. The social
sciences are supposed to be scientific and professional. They are not
supposed to be used to harm people." Serena Golden (Inside Higher Ed) reports on the resignation from the National Academy of Sciences by "eminent University of Chicago anthropologist Marshall Sahli:Sahlins further noted his objection to several recently announced collaborationsbetween
the NAS and the U.S. military. One of the projects involves "measuring
human capabilities" and "the combination of individual capabilities to
create collective capacity to perform"; another seeks to study "the
social and organizational factors that present external influences on
the behavior of individuals operating within the context of military
environments." Both have the stated goal of utilizing social science
research "to inform U.S. military personnel policies and practices."Because of "the toll that military has taken on the blood, treasure,
and happiness of American people, and the suffering it has imposed on
other peoples," Sahlins said, "the NAS, if it involves itself at all in
related research, should be studying how to promote peace, not how to
make war."Sahlins' resignation highlights two serious and ongoing debates within anthropology: one, the appropriate relationship -- if any -- between anthropologists and the military (Sahlins has previously expressed his opposition to any such involvement); two, the role of hard science within the discipline.

Dobbins
says no one seriously argues that counter-insurgency techniques aren't
necessary. It has a Cokie Roberts "none that matter" ring to it,
doesn't it? It just doesn't have the ring of truth to it.

Anthropologist David H. Price
has been a leading voice -- I'd argue the leading voice -- in calling
out social scientists helping the military conduct war on a native
people. At CounterPunch, he interviews anthropologist Marshall Sahlins about Sahlins decision to resign from the National Academy of Sciences:

In late 1965 Sahlins traveled to Vietnam to learn
firsthand about the war and the Americans fighting it, work that
resulted in his seminal essay “The Destruction of Conscience in
Vietnam.” He became one of the clearest and most forceful
anthropological voices speaking out against efforts (in the 1960s and
70s, and in again in post-9/11 America) to militarize anthropology.
In 2009 I was part of a conference at the University of Chicago
critically examining renewed efforts by U.S. military and intelligence
agencies to use anthropological data for counterinsurgency projects.
Sahlins’ paper at the conference argued that, “in Vietnam, the famous
anti-insurgency strategy was search and destroy; here it is research and
destroy. One might think it good news that the military’s
appropriation of anthropological theory is incoherent, simplistic and
outmoded – not to mention tedious – even as its ethnographic protocols
for learning the local society and culture amount to unworkable
fantasies. ”

Are you getting what Bradley Manning
found offensive. He was sent to Iraq with the same lie everyone else
was -- liberation, to help, etc. And what he found were innocents being
tricked and deceived -- innocent Iraqis being targeted:

I
began to become depressed at the situation we found ourselves
mired in year after year. In attempting counterinsurgency operations, we
became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists. I
wanted the public to know that not everyone living in Iraq were targets
to be neutralized.

Alsumaria reports
that MP Magdy Rady (of Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc) stated that the current
government would not survive one week if the Sadrists were to begin
demonstrating in all the provinces. Possibly but the ongoing protests
are pretty powerful as is. Doubt it? Nouri's State of Law can't stop
trashing them. The National Iraq News Agency reports
State of Law MP Kamal al-Saadi told the outlet that the Ba'ath Party is
behind the unrest with the help of "regional powers." State of Law MP Najaf Sadiq tells Alsumaria that "deviants" are the reason for the protests. The Iraqi people are the protesters.

The
deviance is to be found in the government, not in the people. They
want the government to stop allowing women and girls to be tortured and
raped in prison, they want basic services that work -- like potable
water. Really most of the things they were demanding in 2011 are what
they're calling for today. Layla Anwar (Arab Woman Blues) notes the protesters demands:

- End of Sectarian Shia rule
- the re-writing of the Iraqi constitution (drafted by the Americans and Iranians)
- the end to arbitrary killings and detention, rape and torture of all detainees on basis of sect alone and their release
- the end of discriminatory policies in employment, education, etc based on sect
- the provision of government services to all
- the end of corruption
- no division between Shias and Sunnis, a one Islam for all Iraqi Muslims and a one Iraq for all Iraqis.

Those
aren't unreasonable requests. And the protests have been going on
since December with each Friday seeing an increase in the turnout --
last Friday saw over 3 million people take part in the protests --
that's 10% of the country's population. Iraqi Spring MC notes that Samarra has just seen day 60 of their sit-in.

They protesters had the support of clerics and tribal leaders. And the United Nations is meeting with the them. Dar Addustour notes
that the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Iraq Martin Kobler met
with officials and protesters in Kirkuk and that Governor Najmoldeen
Omer Kareem told him yesterday that they support the protesters in
Kirkuk and Hawija and that they understand the demands the protesters
are making. NINA adds that Kobler states the demands of the Kirkuk protesters include holding local elections.

All Iraq News reports
Nouri al-Maliki arrived in Karbala Province today. The province, in
the center of Iraq, has an estimated one million residents and the
capital, Karbala, is one of the holy cities in Iraq that pilgrims travel
to regularly. NINA notes
that Nouri gave a speech about today's Iraq and declared that there was
no place in it "for militias, armed groups and warlords." Of course
not! It would appear he's recruited all of the thugs to be his military
and his police. That would explain the 11 deaths when Nouri's forces opened fire on them January 25th in Falluja.

First is because
a Sour Grape Girl felt the need to insult new Secretary of State John
Kerry on the radio this week. Sour Grape Girl just doesn't feel safe,
as a woman, with Kerry as Secretary of State. Sour Grape Girl needs to
get a life. Women are not vanishing because the new Secretary of State
has a penis. Under Hillary Clinton, the State Dept did not ignore men.
Sour Grape Girls really hurt themselves when they open their uninformed
mouths but they also hurt the cause and maybe some leaders do need to
step away from the microphones after the ages of 70. (See Kat's argument here and Rebecca's here
-- and I'm not referring to Gloria Steinem as the Sour Grape Girl -- it
was Robin Morgan.) John Kerry is in Italy. Tomorrow he goes to
Turkey.

Bulet Aras and Emirhan Yorulmazlar (The Hill) offer their take on the region and note of Iraq:Ankara-Baghdad relations turned sour after Maliki paradoxically
perceived the Turkish position to promote consensual politics not only
in Iraq, but also in Syria as threatening. At home he shied away from
power sharing, abroad he feared yet another Sunni ascendancy. The
resultant equation is the U.S.-encouraged Maliki coalesces with Iran and
the Baathist Assad. Turkey sided with the KRG and Sunni minority
against an “oppressing” Maliki majority bloc, yet acted reservedly not
to alienate other Shiite groups. Iran’s policy has been to aggravateShiite-Sunnite
tensions in Iraq and the region to hedge against its political losses
after the Arab Spring. Meanwhile, Turkey’s burgeoning energy and
security needs entailed a rapprochement with the KRG, which was earlier
advocated by the Americans but went even further than U.S. projections.
Overall, for Ankara, the U.S. siding with Maliki in the name of
political stability is a faux pas that requires reparation. This is
while the U.S. came out vocal in opposing Turkish-KRG cooperation
particularly on energy. Maliki’s ties with Ankara seem irreparable and
until US pretension about political stability in Iraq ends both sides
will continue to differ on Iraqi affairs.

Cindy Sheehan is a world famous peace activist, an author, the host of Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox and a lot more. She's gearing up for a new action, the Tour de Peace.FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WHAT: Gold Star
Mother and "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan will lead a Tour de Peace bike ride across the United States

from the grave of her son Casey in Vacaville, Calif., to
Washington, D.C., following the mother road, historic Route
66 to Chicago, and other roads from there on to D.C.Bicyclers will join in for all or part of the
tour, which will include public events organized by local groups along the way.
Complete route: http://tourdepeace.org/the-route.html

WHEN: The tour
will begin on April 4, 2013, nine years after Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq,
and 45 years after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed in Memphis.It will conclude on July 3, 2013, with a ride
from Arlington National Cemetery to the White House.

WHY: This August
will mark 8 years since Cindy Sheehan began a widely reported protest at
then-President George W. Bush's "ranch" in Crawford, Texas, demanding
to know what the "noble cause" was for which Bush claimed Americans
were dying in Iraq.Neither Bush nor
President Obama has yet offered a justification for a global war now in its 12th
year.The Tour de Peace will carry with
it these demands:

To end wars,To end immunity for U.S. war crimes,To end suppression of our civil rights,To end the use of fossil fuels,To end persecution of whistleblowers,To end partisan apathy and inaction.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

CNN reports:Veteran journalist Bob Woodward said Wednesday he
was threatened by a senior Obama administration official following his
reporting on the White House's handling of the forced federal spending cuts set to take effect on Friday.
"They're not happy at all," he said on CNN's "The Situation Room,"
adding that an e-mail from a senior administration official - who he
would not name - communicated a message which caused him great concern.

"It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this," he said. Woodward penned a 2012 book reporting that the idea for the spending
cuts, known as the sequester, originated with the White House. It's a
claim President Barack Obama originally denied, but the White House has since acknowledged.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, Bradley
Manning was the leak to WikiLeaks (he tells the court in a filing),
Nouri supposedly has arrest warrants ready to go on various politicians
(political rivals), Fright Night was last night in Baghdad as Nouri and
others freaked out over a sit-in outside the Green Zone, Senator Patty Murray earns a well deserved honor, and more.

Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) reports
on a US military court filing in the case of Bradley Manning,
specifically that Bradley stated in the defense filing that he passed
material to WikiLeaks with the intent to "spark a domestic debate on the
role of our military and foreign policy in general." What are we
talking about?

Monday April 5,
2010, WikiLeaks released US
military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were
killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and
Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7,
2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley
Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel
(Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had
been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The
first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring
classified information to his personal computer between November and May and
adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second
comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of
classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud
(Los Angeles Times) reported
that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one
that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty
if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of
this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced
that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has
yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was
postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a
record of his actual actions. Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland,
with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a
traitor."

So Bradley has admitted in court filings that he
passed on papers; however, he has not entered a plea on the major
charges. Murphy explains:Private Manning's guilty pleas, however, are not to the crimes he's been
charged with and will not effect the prosecutions ongoing case. They're
to lesser offenses, and will have no impact on whether he's convicted
on the more serious charges sought by Army prosecutors. So why do it?
Manning, who has only been allowed to speak during the pretrial process
once before and who has been kept largely isolated from the press,
friends, and supporters during his over 1,000 days in detention since
his arrest in Iraq on May 28, 2010, wants to expand on the political motives that moved him to commit his acts.

The
statement was written by Manning in person and hand-typed by him.
Discussion in court indicated that in it he makes a declaration of the
motives that led him to want to pass information to WikiLeaks – making
the account a possibly seminal document.Lind said that she would
decide overnight whether to allow Manning to read out the document in
court on Thursday. She insisted that the statement had to have the
soldier's signature erased so that it would not be a sworn document –
following prosecution protests that they would not be able to
cross-examine him on the content of his speech. - See more at: http://www.cantondailyledger.com/article/20130227/NEWS/130229222/1001/NEWS#sthash.u8JtVxn4.dpuf

The
statement was written by Manning in person and hand-typed by him.
Discussion in court indicated that in it he makes a declaration of the
motives that led him to want to pass information to WikiLeaks -- making
the account a possibly seminal document.Lind said that she would
decide overnight whether to allow Manning to read out the document in
court on Thursday. She insisted that the statement had to have the
soldier's signature erased so that it would not be a sworn document --
following prosecution protests that they would not be able to
cross-examine him on the content of his speech.

The
statement was written by Manning in person and hand-typed by him.
Discussion in court indicated that in it he makes a declaration of the
motives that led him to want to pass information to WikiLeaks – making
the account a possibly seminal document.
Lind said that she would
decide overnight whether to allow Manning to read out the document in
court on Thursday. She insisted that the statement had to have the
soldier's signature erased so that it would not be a sworn document –
following prosecution protests that they would not be able to
cross-examine him on the content of his speech.
- See more at: http://www.cantondailyledger.com/article/20130227/NEWS/130229222/1001/NEWS#sthash.u8JtVxn4.dpuf

Lind is Col Denise Lind who will be presiding over the court-martial. Ben Nuckols (AP) notes that a small number of (84) of court documents were released today. Ed Pilkington (Guardian) adds, "The 84 documents released by the army include court rulings on defence
and government motions, and orders that set the scheduling of the trial
that is currently earmarked to begin on 3 June. But the batch
constitutes only a tiny portion of the huge mountain of paperwork that
has already been generated in the proceedings, including some 500
documents stretching to 30,000 pages." Adam Klasfeld (Courthouse News) reports
that "a prosecutor asked the court to close the public from about a
third of the upcoming" court-martial. Klasfeld reports Maj Ashden Fein
told Lind that "very little" would be kept from the public, elaborating
it would be "no more than 30%" to which Lind replied, "The government
considered 30% very little?"

So right now, where do things stand for Bradley? Julie Tate (Washington Post) offers this take, "Manning would face 20 years in prison if he pleads guilty, as
anticipated, to unauthorized possession of classified records, videos
and documents and willful communication of those to an unauthorized
person. After that, Manning would still face 12 other charges in the
case, including aiding the enemy and violation of the espionage act."

The National Iraqi News Agency reports
that the National Alliance (Shi'ite slate of various political slates
and parties) announced today, via MP Haitham al-Jubouri, that "The issue
of replacing Maliki is unlikely ever within the Iraqi National Alliance
and what is being addressed today about scenarios to extend the
demonstrations in all the cities of Iraq to join the demonstrators in
Baghdad to pressure on the government to get the prime minister out is
impossible." That doesn't help the protesters feel heard.

Since
December, Iraq has seen ongoing protests. They want a government that's
responsive. In many ways, the protests are an echo of the ones from
2011 -- the ones Nouri derailed by attacking (physically) the protesters
and also be swearing that if the people just gave him 100 days, he'd
respond to the protesters demands. He took the 100 days and refused to
respond. The disappeared were always a concern to the protesters. In
2011 and currently, it's been one of the ethical grounds from which the
protesters argue for change. A difference between then and now,
however, is that now the Iraqi people have learned that women and girls
are being tortured and raped in Iraqi prisons and detention centers.
This is among the reasons that they feel that if change cannot come to
Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki needs to go. And yet today the National Alliance
declares that will not happen? It's statements like that which fuel
the protesters belief that they are not being listened by the
government.

The MP, of the state law coalition, Sadiq al-Labban revealed that
"the government would issue arrest warrants against those who instigated
and participated in fueling sectarian strife through exploiting the
demonstrations to split the Iraqi National Front, noting that among
these names, the Finance Minister Rafie al-Issawi.

This is apparently another case of Nouri's State of Law political slate
being unable to control themselves in public. In this case, al-Labban
has revealed something in existence that Nouri wasn't wanting known just
yet.

Rafie al-Issawi is a member of Iraqiya, the political slate that came in
first in the March 2010 elections (beating Nouri's State of Law). He
is also Sunni. Nouri's reputation is one for fighting dirty against
political opponents. If the warrants are real, expect things in Iraq to
get a lot worse a lot quicker than many anticipated. If the talk of
warrants if false, al-Labban just made some very uninformed remarks that
will have huge repercussions.

The statements of the State of Law coalition's MPs about arrest
warrants against the leader of the Iraqiya, Finance Minister Rafie
al-Issawi is dangerous [and] if they have court orders issued by their
courts, this is another subject. We do not know the basis that the
state of law coalition's MP is authorized to talk about an arrest
warrant while the judiciary did not say anything about it, indicating
that the goal is to create new crises after failing of the Government.
These remarks will lead to a backlash, especially at this critical
juncture, through which the Iraqi state is passing.

Distrust, anger and hostility are just some of the feelings
State of Law has created with the comments about arrest warrants. Look
for this Friday's protests to be larger than last week's which saw over 3
million people participate -- 10% of the Iraqi population.

Also making the rounds to discuss the political situation has been US Ambassador to Iraq Robert Beecroft. Ahlul Bayt News Agency reports
he met yesterday with Ammar al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Islamic
Council of Iraq, and that the two discussed the ongoing political
crisis. All Iraq News quotes
from a statement issued by al-Hakim's office which includes, "For his
part, the US Ambassador praised Hakim's efforts to resolve the political
crisis in Iraq, appreciating his calls for all the politicians to
follow dialogue and calmness in coping with the crises." In addition, Al Mada reports
that the US and Iraqi governments -- specifically the US Treasury
Dept's Deputy Secretary David Cohen who is meeting with Iraqi officials
in Baghdad -- are discussing ways to disrupt the flow of terrorist
financing in Iraq.

Meanwhile Alsumaria reports
that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc has accused Nouri al-Maliki of not applying
justice fairly with regards to the Justice and Accountability law.
Making their statement in a Parliament press conference today, they
pointed to Nouri's ally Medhat al-Mahmoud who was Chief Justice of the
federal judiciary. When he was removed from his position because the
Accountability and Justice Commission found him to have ties to
Ba'athists, Nouri did not abide by the decision and insisted that
al-Mahmoud remained a judge and remained off-limits from prosecution.
Falah Shanshal was the head of the Justice and Accountability Commission
at that time and Nouri fired him a week after the decision on
al-Mahmoud. Moqtada's bloc agrees with Speaker of Parliament Osama
al-Nujaifi, who reinstated Shanshal on the Justice and Accountability
Commission -- that commission, they argue, is overseen by Parliament and
Nouri has no control over it. Despite having no control over it, he
has stepped into their dealings the minute he didn't like a decision.
This is why the Sadr bloc accuses him of not applying the law fairly.

Alsumaria reports
in the press conference today they also addressed the issue of the
budget. This is the 2013 budget which, yes, should have been passed
before 2013 started. Alsumaria reported
yesterday that supporters of cleric and movement leader Moqtada
al-Sadr launched a sit-in outside the Green Zone to get the budget
passed. This followed Monday's announcement that the vote on the 2013 budget was again postponed. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported of the sit-in, "Demonstrators are demanding movement on the $115 billion budget that was
approved by Iraq's Cabinet in October. Parliament still needs to pass
the draft legislation, and leaders of key political parties are
struggling to reach an agreement." AFP noted, "It was not immediately clear if the additional security measures, which
the ministry official said have caused heavy traffic jams across the
city, were aimed at preventing people from joining the protests, or
guarding them against attack." NINA observes,
"It is noteworthy that the vote on the budget in the House of
Representatives has seen a series of delays because of disagreements
among the blocs and lack of approval." Ayad al-Tamimi (Al Mada) reports
the sit-in resulted in increased measures including keeping journalists
out of the Parliament building which meant missed out on the 'big'
press conference staged by Nouri's State of Law. A police officer told a
reporter who had intended to cover the press conference that he was
under orders to shoot anyone -- including a journalist -- who attempted
to enter the building. Kitabat reports
that the sit-in lasted through the night and frightened authorities who
attempted to pressure Moqtada to ask his followers to end the sit-in.
Citing an unnamed government source, Kitabat states the Green Zone
administrators and the Office of the Commander in Chief of the Armed
Forces (Nouri) were scared on "fright night" (their term) and forces in
the Green Zone were put on maximum alert. The Iraq Times notes
that today Moqtada al-Sadr issued a statement decrying the government's
(over)reaction to peaceful protesters protesting the fact that
Parliament still had not passed the 2013 budget.

And it is
ridiculous the way the government reacted. But Nouri's reactions are
always ridiculous. At the heart of everything he does is the knowledge
that he is an illegitimate ruler. He was not the choice of the Iraqi
Parliament. The Bush White House vetoed the Parliament's choice and
that's how Nouri became prime minister in 2006. In 2010, voters showed
their support for Iraqiya. Nouri only got a second term because the
Barack White House backed him and came up with the idea of using a
contract -- the US-brokered Erbil Agreement -- to 'grant' Nouri a second
term as prime minister since the Constitution did not allow for him to
have a second term as a result of the votes. When you are an
illegitimate leader, you always fear the public.

All Iraq News reports
that an announcement by the Ministry of Trade declared there would be a
referendum on whether or not to continue to provide flour via ration
cards or to instead supply the citizens with money they could spend on
flour (or whatever). The rations program began in 1995 and has been
repeatedly slashed
since the start of the Iraq War at the repeated request of the US
government which frowns upon aid to the poor and struggling. Attempts
to outright kill the program have been repeatedly met with a strong
pushback from Iraqis so the US pushed for incremental cuts until
there is little left.By 2010, the packages only offered sugar, rice,
flour, cooking oil and milk. Milk for some, of course.
Milk for all was cut sometime ago. Gone are the days of tomato paste,
tea, chicken, soap, beans, detergent, cheese, etc. In a population of
approximately 30 million (US government estimates vary between 26
million
and 28 million -- of course, Nouri 'forgot' to conduct the census he was
supposed to do in 2007), over eight million Iraqis are dependent upon
the program to meet basic dietary needs as a result of the extreme
poverty in Iraq. Dropping back to the November 12th snapshot:

Something only slightly less than confusion surrounds the food-ration card system. Last Tuesday,
Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh announced the cancellation of the
program. There was a huge pushback that grew and grew -- from
politicians, from clerics, from the people until Friday
when it really couldn't be ignored. The program has been in place since
1991 meaning that it is all over half of Iraqis know (Iraq has a very
young population, the median age has now risen to 21). It allowed Iraqis
to get basic staples such as flour sugar, rice, etc. As the clerics,
including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, noted, this move would hurt
the people who are already struggling economically. It was also an
idiotic political move to make. In April, provinicial elections will
be held. Nouri's already in campaign mode and this very unpopular move
did not help him there. The smartest thing politically would have been
to go into a full retreat on the proposal and announce that you had
heard the people, to flatter them and make it appear you listened.

Today Alsumaria reports
that the food program is not getting the axe. Instead, the people will
be able to decide if they would like to remain on the existing system or
receive cash. When you tell people they can remain on the ration card
system or they can get cash, when you tell that to people in a bad
economy with many bills, they will be tempted to go for the cash. The
ration card is the better system. But there are bills owed that have to
be paid and there is the hope in people that things have to get better.
So they will tell themselves that they can make it right now with the
cash and that, in a few months or a year, fate will provide and things
will be better. In the meantime, they've been moved off the progam and
the prices -- as Sistani, politicans and the people have noted -- will
sky rocket. So the money will be of little use to them then.

But
they won't be able to go back on the ration card system. The point is
to dismantle the system. That was what the US government tried to do
immediately after the invasion. It's what Nouri and others have done
with the constant reduction of what rations the cards provided. All Iraq News notes
the Parliament has voted to cancel the decision to replace the cards
with cash but it's not clear whether the Cabinet's emergency meeting and
new decision overrides that move by the Parliament. Khalid al-Ansary and Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg News) covers it in a brief English language story.

And
now they're getting ready to vote. But this was a dumb move, always.
It was dumb politically and it was dumb when it comes to the health of
the Iraqi people. Now Nouri's inviting people to spend a year on this
program . . . before parliamentary elections. That's a year to grow
hostile should you drop flour to receive money.

And Nouri is so divisive that the Badr Organization (headed by Hadi
al-Amiri) is breaking with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (headed
by Ammar al-Hakim). Al Rafidyan reports
that move is yet another sign of the crisis facing the National
Alliance -- a loose grouping of Shi'ites including State of Law, the
Sadr bloc and others -- which backed Nouri for prime minister. By
backing Nouri, Hadi al-Amiri was given the portfolio for the Ministry of
Transport and the Ministry of Communication.

The Badr
Organization was previously the Badr Brigade which came to be in 1982 in
Iran and was the armed wing and they spread into Iraq in April 2003.
Hadi al-Amiri has gone public with his issues with the Islamic Supreme
Council including that Ammar al-Hakim was selected to fill the post
created when Ammar's father passed away. al-Amiri has called that
moment when the seeds of division began to take root and decried the
leaders who voted Ammar al-Hakim in for, in his opinion, choosing a
successor not based on wisdom but to keep the control within the
al-Hakim family.

Hadi appears to be working with Nouri again. Nouri made similar points in an AP interview with Adam Schreck and Qassim Abdul-Zahra: "Nouri al-Maliki stopped short of voicing outright support for Syrian
President Bashar Assad's embattled regime. But his comments in a
wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press marked one of his
strongest warnings yet about the turmoil that the collapse of the Syrian
government could create."

"Together there's
no challenge we can't meet on behalf of our veterans," declared Veterans
Affairs Committee Jeff Miller declared yesterday at a hearing where
members of Congress heard from Disabled Veterans of America. Chair
Bernie Sanders offered, "It is unacceptable that veterans wait months
and months and years and years to get those claims adjudicated. That is
an issue we've got to work on and that we've got to solve."

Two
Chairs? Yes, not a typo. Yesterday the House Veterans Affairs
Committee and the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee held a
joint-hearing. House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair is Jeff Miller,
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chair is Bernie Sanders.

Chair
Sanders is the new Chair of the Committee. Everybody finds their own
way as Chair and Ranking Member. I love Daniel Akaka, he's a great
senator. But I criticized him when he was in the post. Chair Miller
got raked over the coals by me for months. And then, when he was doing a
strong job, the raking was gone and I thought we were all aware that
was due to the stronger job but a friend asked me if I hadn't noticed
how Miller had adjusted so it obviously wasn't clear so there's a
snapshot where I make a point to note that he didn't just improve, he
grew into his role and was doing a strong job. Senator Patty Murray?

She's
the exception. Over a year before she became Chair, we were advocating
for her to be the Chair here. That was because she had the energy, she
had the skills and she had the determination. She's the rare person
who takes over as Chair and hits the ground running. I don't believe we
ever had a need to criticize her negatively as Chair. By the same
token, I am sure she did not get the praise others would have gotten for
the same work. In the coverage of the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee hearings, we advocated for her to be the Chair and when she
became the Chair, she really did the amazing job that most knew she was
capable of. And because we expected her to do such a great job, we were
able to focus on what she was doing and she probably got short changed
in terms of praise here as a result. So my apologies for that. She was
a great Chair and I wish she was still Chair. (She now Chairs the
Senate Budget Committee and she remains on the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee.)

I say all of that to note that things just aren't
fair. Miller's performance got critiques that Murray's never did. I
paid attention to Miller's performance because I found it lacking. I
didn't even note Murray's performance because it was so professional --
from day one as Chair -- that we were able to instead focus on what
happened in the hearings. And let's put in an honor that's been
bestowed upon Senator Murray. Her office issued the following today: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEWednesday, February 27, 2013CONTACT: Murray Press Office(202) 224-2834

Senator Murray Honored by Military Order of the Purple HeartRecognized for leadership and distinguished service to our nation's veterans

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty
Murray (D-WA) was presented the Inspirational Leadership Award by the Military
Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH) during a private ceremony in her Capitol Hill
offices. MOPH National Commander Bruce McKenty presented this year’s award to
Senator Murray which read:

“Since being
elected to the Senate in 1992, Senator Patty Murray has consistently served as
an advocate for veterans, military members and their
families.

“Having been
raised in the family of a disabled World War II veteran, she came to the Senate
fully understanding the sacrifices, as well as the physical and emotional scars
the veterans bring home with them.

“Senator
Murray was the first female Senator to serve on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs
Committee and serves as its Chair in the 112th Congress. She has
consistently been a tireless advocate for all veterans.

“She led the
battle for increased funding for veterans’ healthcare and increased benefits,
and profoundly recognized the importance of specialized programs for veterans
suffering from TBI and PTSD.

“Senator
Murray continues to support education and employment opportunities, better
health care for women veterans and a myriad of other programs that she believes
America owes its veterans.

“Senator
Murray’s service reflects great credit upon herself, the United States Senate
and the United States of America.”

The organization
now known as the "Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A. Inc.," was
formed in 1932 for the protection and mutual interest of all who have received
the decoration. Chartered by the Congress, The MOPH is unique among Veteran
Service Organizations in that all its members were wounded in combat. For this
sacrifice, they were awarded the Purple Heart Medal.

As
I stated earlier, Chair Jeff Miller grew stronger and stronger and is a
very good Chair today. Bernie Sanders may grow stronger and stronger.
But this was his first hearing as Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee.

In these hearings, the joint-hearings where they hear
from one service group, you're really just trying to get your message
out -- regardless of whether you're providing testimony on behalf of
your organization to the Committee or whether you're a member of the
Committee addressing the veterans gathered and outlining what you hope
to do or assuring what you plan to do. One of Chair Sanders' big points
-- probably his biggest -- was what follows.

Chair Bernie
Sanders: Last point. How many people in this room know what a chained
CPI is? See, everybody up here knows what a Chained CPI is. We know.
But most people in America don't know. So on TV tonight, you're going
to hear people talking about the need for entitlement reform for a
Chained CPI. What a Chained CPI is a different way of configuring COLAS
for Social Security and for disabled veterans. A Chained CPI would
make significant cuts for some 3,000,000 disabled veterans as well as
everybody on Social Security. Now I feel very strongly that (a) the
deficit situation is a serious problem, it has to be dealt with but you
don't deal with it on the backs of disabled veterans and widows who lost
their husbands in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anyone see any problems?

First
up, don't insult you audience. Did he mean to? No. 'We all know up
here but you don't' doesn't necessarily sound welcoming and was griped
about by three veterans I spoke with after the hearing. Two more
veterans were confused by "COLAs." They knew he didn't mean sodas. But
what did he mean? COLA is a Cost Of Living Adjustment. I doubt anyone
is now confused reading "Cost Of Living Adjustment." The three
offended were all over fifty. Not surprising, COLA questions came from
two veterans under the age of thirty. You're going to have a wide
audience of veterans and you need, if you're the Chair, to communicate
with them. Anytime they're stopping to ask "Hey, what's COLA?" or "Did
he just insult me?" -- that's time they stop listening because your
words have distracted them. The point was important to Sanders -- he's
one of the strongest advocates for Social Security in the Senate. But
he lost five I spoke to. This was the first hearing as Chair of the
Committee. I do feel it was a mistake. It wasn't a mistake that's
going to haunt him or even be remembered in a month. But it did take
place and it was remarked on (strongly) by three veterans. I did share
with them a point that's worth noting here. That section that we
quoted, it wasn't being read. Chair Sanders was speaking off the cuff
and trying to get away from the reading aspect of his statements. I'm
not trying to rescue him. If I were trying to rescue him, I'd be
saying, "And he looked nervous, everybody, it was his first time
chairing!" He didn't look nervous. He looked comfortable in his
environment. It was a mistake -- in that the wording distracted from an
important point he wanted to make -- but it wasn't a major one or the
end of the world.

I spoke with twelve veterans after the
hearing -- two were unimpressed with the entire hearing -- it was the
first one they'd attended that was one service organization. Those
really aren't typical hearings. There's no real questioning and not a
panel of witnesses because usually one person speaks for all. That left
ten veterans. We've already noted five, the other five? Two were
impressed with Miller (though one confused him with Senator John
Boozman, he was praising the remarks Miller had made). Two felt all the
members who spoke did a good job. And one felt House Veterans Affairs
Committee Ranking Member Michael Michaud did a great job. I thought he
did as well and he's been slighted the last two times I've covered full
House Veterans Affairs Committee hearings because I've wanted to quote
him but there were other aspects of the hearing and other
representatives we had to grab.

Ranking Member Mike
Michaud: As you know, the administration has delayed the release of its
Fiscal Year 2014 proposal. While VA programs are spared from the
effects of sequestration, it does not mean that veterans will be left
unaffected. Veterans will lose extended unemployment insurance as well
as face cuts in the critical TAP program -- just to name a few. In
addition, all of our citizens will face the effects of sequestration at
the state and local levels as well. The VA is at a crossroads. Many
important decisions will need to be made as we look towards the future.
Working with you and the VA, we'll make sure that the choices are both
fiscally responsible and in the best interests of our veterans. I look
forward to your testimony today. Again, thank you and your organization
for the years of service that you have given to make sure that veterans
issues and their families issues are heard here on the Hill so thank
you very much, Commander.

Commander is Larry Polzin and he is the National Commander of Disabled Veterans of America.
There are many ways a veteran can end up being disabled. They can be
harmed while serving, for example. When we think of that, we may think
of the loss of a limb or of emotional or mental wounds. Hearing issues
actually remain a constant even in the most recent wars of Iraq and
Afghanistan. As Manuel Gallegus (CBS News HealthWatch -- link is text and video) reported last May,
"60% of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have damaged
hearing" -- with tinnitus being the most common, followed by hearing
loss. We note that regularly because veterans write to the public
e-mail account to note the hearing issues and how they often feel that
newer and 'hotter' disabilities get attention while hearing issues
don't. One thing that hasn't gotten attention in the last weeks from me
is the victims of burn pits. I'm an idiot. My apologies for being an
idiot. My plan was to note regularly the upcoming symposium -- it's
next week -- and I believe we only noted it twice, the last time near
the start of the month. Disabilities from burn pits are life
threatening. The Congress passed a burn pit registry bill at the very
end of the last session and that is great news but there is so much to
be done.

Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, New York is
gearing up to host a symposium on the issue. This will be their second
one, their 2nd Annual Scientific Symposium on Lung Health after
Deployment to Iraq & Afghanistan. The symposium will take place
March 4th which isn't that far away. If you'd like to register to
attend, you can click here
for the registration info if you're doing it by mail or by fax as well
as a registration link if you'd like to register online. A resource for
burn pit issues is Burn Pits 360

Two
key points here. Friday, March 1st is the last day to register to
attend the symposium. So keep that in mind. Second, one of the things
the Veterans Affairs Committees in both houses have long addressed is
rural veterans. Senator Jon Tester, for example, often notes the rural
veterans in his state and how certain computer interaction would benefit
them. If you're a rural veteran or you're no where near Stony Brook,
New York, they are offering -- for $50 for veterans or veteran family members -- a live stream of the symposium. So that may be something that you'll be interested in.

The
Congressional hearing we noted earlier was a joint-hearing of the House
and Senate's veterans committees. Chair Bernie Sanders solos in his
first Senate hearing as Chair next month:

COMMITTEE NOTICE

There
will be a meeting of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in SR-418,
Russell Senate Office Building, on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, at 10:00
a.m. to conduct a hearing titled "VA Claims Process -- Review of VA's
Transformation Efforts."